If state grammar schools were for only state educated children…

[Rosaluxemberg]

Do you think it would help social mobility ? And that children on FSM or from very disadvantaged backgrounds who showed academic promise could gain entry with contextual 11 plus marks (like Unis).
To me the fact that privately educated children can benefit from 7 years of great education, with small classes, lots of attention, and to cap it all, preparation towards the 11 plus just seems so unfair and defeats the whole objective of it. Maybe there’d be more mixing of kids as middle class parents had to decide which path to take.
Who knows ? Any thoughts ?

Just get rid of them. Have comprehensive schools with sets and streams - at least sets/streams allow movement over the years and provide some leeway for kids with spiky profiles (“good at maths, terrible at humanities” and things like that).

There are something like 163 Grammar schools in England and 60 odd in Northern Ireland given that the vast majority of kids in the UK are not educated in Grammar schools and haven't been for the past 40 + years I'm not sure why mumsnet is so obsessed with them.

I know several parents who use state comprehensives (not grammars) but also pay for private tutoring. It's not something specific to grammars.

Also sometimes family finances change, after a divorce or redundancy or something else. The parents don't always have the option to stay with private schooling and I can understand why, if there's a local grammar and it's the most suitable school for the child, the parents move them there.

I don't know if things have changed but I have a couple of friends who went to grammars when they were kids. None went to private primaries. It was some time ago though so perhaps less common now?

I realise this is perhaps an unpopular opinion but I would support an expansion of grammar schools but with changes from how it used to be. In the past not passing the 11+ was seen as a 'failure' and secondary moderns were looked down on. That was the problem imo.

I'd like something similar to the German system. Equally valued secondary options but aimed at providing an education matched to each child's different abilities and skills. They have academic secondaries, but also vocational ones that are seen as an apprenticeship in craft or industrial trades. As long as each option is valued equally (because vocational skills and training are as important as academic ones) I think it's a good system to model on.

The idea of state grammars looks good on paper- the best and brightest of our children get access to a grammar education no matter their background.
When you pick into the sociology of it, there are problems:

1: Why are we gatekeeping the best education? Sure a high standard of education is the best thing for all children, and what are we saying about state comprehensives when we tell people they are second best, and the choice for those who weren't good enough?

2: Why are we directing the life passage of a child at 10/11 years old? Were you the best version of yourself at this age? Have you developed and grown since then? It's an overwhelming amount of pressure to put on children of that age, and there are many children who are simply not 'ready' for the pressures of academia at that age. But that doesn't mean they won't access high levels of education later, we can't write them off.

3: Children from low income, disability or BAME backgrounds are at a disadvantage with the 11+. Take a child from a very low income background and lets make the assumption that they have a high intellectual potential. That child statistically isn't spoken to or read to as much as other children, they access health services less and live in a lower standard of housing (again- all stats). They are already 12-18 months behind some of their higher income peers by 4 years old. Higher income families will do 11+ prep and maybe even get a tutor, schools with higher income families will prepare children far more for the test. Over time (by 10/11 years old), that low income child has very little hope compared to others, and now we're going to tell them that they had their chance, but they just 'naturally' weren't good enough for grammar.

Sorry for the long post!

YABU. I would rather time and effort was spent bringing the state system up to scratch. With parents, teachers and the state all playing their part.

Just focusing on the needs of those who can get high exam grades is not the way forward.

Don't like the idea of every child being just sent to their catchment school.
Some schools are brilliant for very academic children - personally I went to grammar and it was great for me, to be in an all girls school where a higher number of GCSES was expected and other stuff like art and sport was much more optional. Many children would not thrive there as it's the wrong environment.
Some schools are brilliant at sports, have a wide range of opportunities not just a bit off football netball and tennis.
Some schools prioritise STEM, or the arts, or developing business skills.
Some schools are very big and others are very small and have smaller class sizes even within the state sector.
Some children will cope fine with two buses or a train and others will be better off if they walk up the road.
Most schools are underfunded and many are not good enough at supporting children with additional needs.
As a SEN parent, even if you hear a school is good with additional needs, it's frustrating to go and read their SEN information report and find that what they are really good at is a different type of SEN to your child's needs. However, niching into something is likely to be what has made them so good at it.

Some local grammar schools already offer a lower pass mark for pp children.

For all I know they all do. Have you checked?

I'd oppose that, and I'm as pro state school as it is possible to get. People's circumstances change and it would be deeply unjust to ban their children from the education they deserve just because they've been in private education to date.

I'd get rid of the Grammar system and look at funding schools, pupils premium, bring back Sure Start or a similar scheme and look at general social inequality so that children could go to to school warm, fed, housed, clean, with access to healthcare, special needs met, minimal caring/earning responsibilities and with parenting support for families that need it. And teachers can focus on education, and encouraging achievement as development and not have to try to combine that with patching up a broken system.

Just focusing on the needs of those who can get high exam grades is not the way forward

Secondary schools do the same thing. They strongly suggest pupils who will not make the grade do not sit the exams so their pass rates are higher.

They stream so the brighter pupils get the best teachers - they also get additional ‘maths club’ dress up to help all but the lower end students aren’t studying what’s the clubs offer - because they are learning the lower end of the curriculum.

Move sets, only ever seen this downwards. Pupils never move upwards because they are already behind with the teaching.

Why not both?

I take issue with the suggestion that being academically able is 'the best'. That's imo one of the reasons why, in the UK but not Germany, the grammar system went wrong and why it was largely abandoned. Germany recognises vocational abilities and education are just as important and valuable as academic ability and education. It's not a failure to be less academic.

That's going to chime really well with the VAT issue haha

I think grammar schools should be means tested.
It has become a free private school experience so rich parents feel morally and socially better about the fact they "aren't privileged" when they clearly are just saving a fortune at the tax payer's expense to spend on increased luxury.

As it is your kid is penalised for SEN, even mild dyslexia, from these places. It is not therefore a level playing field for social mobility in the slightest. Far fewer FSM in the grammars here than get full bursaries at the indies.

Grammar schools create an unfair advantage themselves. They cream off the most academic students and are full of kids from well-to-do families who can spend ££££ on private tutors from year 2 and houses in grammar school areas. But it's been at least 1 day since the last private school bashing thread so why not start another one!

Here's some information on the German system (note there's the option for 'late bloomer' academic kids to move from a vocational school to an academic one at a later stage

(The one failing with the German system is perhaps it's SEN provision. Although it depends on what people consider is best for them. Germany has specific schools for children with SEN. That might be seen as good, if they're better tailored to cater for needs. The downside though is, as the link says, disabled children are less integrated.)

https://www.simplegermany.com/german-school-system/

I dont live in a grammar school area and they seem absurd to me to be honest.

But I dont think it would help social mobility to ban private school pupils transferring. I think parents would pay for tutoring and prepare their chikdren in other ways.

I think parents would just tutor if they couldn’t use the private prep school - so it wouldn’t make much difference in terms of social mobility. Even if tutoring was banned/taxed, parents could help kids themselves. There is no way of removing the leg up that having an educated, involved, nurturing and dedicated parent gets you. My ds knows 2 kids with Oxbridge places. #1 - both parents have a degree in the subject, #2 - one parent has a degree in the subject and the other teachers the subject as well.

Besides, I am not sure we should be removing/disincentivising people doing well - very regressive. Yes to more opportunities to those at the bottom, but no to ripping destroying people at the top.

labour abolished the grammar/secondary modern system in the 60s. I don’t understand why any grammars are still about. I don’t live in a grammar area so know nothing about them.

for the person saying this is a small % of kids moving private - grammar, well yes it is, but they’ll be concentrated in particular areas so it makes a difference presumably in those places.

really though, if labour are true to their principles, they should immediately stop all grammars, faith schools and privates. And they should randomise admissions to leafy state schools so that you can’t house price your way in. But this would piss off too many people. And the bottom line is votes.

Any school which receives state funding should be available to everyone. I cant believe we still have selective grammar schools and faith schools when in many areas the most deprived children only have the option of a failing high school.

My Son (always bright and good at Maths) failed the 11 plus.He went to our local all boys Secondary.He passed all his GCSEs and A levels .Now has a Masters in on Physics from a RG uni! As his teacher said at the time ,its just how they perform on the day! Not an indication of future ability.One of his friends who went to the same school is now a Doctor,another on FSM a teacher !

YANBU it totally defeats the point of grammars. I went to one and at least half the kids either came from private or could’ve easily afforded it. It’s sort of unenforceable though

We used to have the grammar/secondary modern system. It worked well. Once in it, a move was possible. One of my parents moved secondary modern to grammar. Labour abolished it, probably the biggest blow to education ever struck in this country in the 60s. It was when the rot set in.

in the 90s, labour struck another blow to poor kids who had free places in private - abolished assisted places. My dh was an assisted place kid.

private schools are sort of a grammar replacement in many areas - so now labour are bashing these as well.

seems whatever education system we have, labour try to rip the top down, rather than pulling the bottom up.

and the irony is that Starmer was at a grammar that turned private. He’s been educated in both the sectors that labour either destroyed or want to destroy.

Even that won’t be enough. How will you stop the house price rises in the tight catchments of fabulous state schools? some are already private by house price.

Children are already ranked based on their birth month though aren't they? Even though the August born children will be in the same classes as the September born children. I don't see how it would hurt to similarly adjust scores by comparing private school children to other private school children?

We had it and labour destroyed it in the 60s.

grammar/secondary modern system

so long dead that people don’t remember it.